$5000 per coin will never happen if PoW mining is allowed to continue

[Lauda]

Halving does nothing to the PoW expense, I have explained the PoW expense is a function of Bitcoin marketcap.

After the 1st halving, the PoW expense actually increased significantly. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

I don't want any crazy Bitcoin price, but I legitimately think without PoW, we would be most likely close to $5000 per coin now. We have spent a lot of money on PoW in the past 5 years.

It does not reduce the expense?
You're saying it costs Bitcoin $500 million a year right now. If the block reward were to halve tomorrow.
It would not cost Bitcoin $250 million a year afterwards (to sustain price)?

[tokyopotato]

Halving does nothing to the PoW expense, I have explained the PoW expense is a function of Bitcoin marketcap.

After the 1st halving, the PoW expense actually increased significantly. Therefore, your theory is invalid.

I don't want any crazy Bitcoin price, but I legitimately think without PoW, we would be most likely close to $5000 per coin now. We have spent a lot of money on PoW in the past 5 years.

It does not reduce the expense?
You're saying it costs Bitcoin $500 million a year right now. If the block reward were to halve tomorrow.
It would not cost Bitcoin $250 million a year afterwards (to sustain price)?

The price of Bitcoin has to increase for the network to remain as strong as it is.  Otherwise, it's likely for it to become unprofitable after halving until the hashrates come down.

[rampage101]

$500 million a year is not that much when you compare to something like Apple corporation which has a value over $600 billion.

I thin when the block reward halves it will make a big difference, as the difficulty will also be much higher by then.

[amaclin]

No, you don't understand there are superior functioning alternatives available.

Sorry. The only working alternative is current fiat system.
With governments, taxes, military forces, etc.

Decentralized crypto currencies are too expensive to be maintained by community.

[amaclin]

If Bitcoin switch to PoS system, all its rules and function will still be the same, just that it will no longer expend $500 million USD in value every year, to pay miners/pools/hardware vendors/electricity companies. All that money will stay in the Bitcoin eco-system, for the benefit of the eco-system.

It will not help either.

Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible ( by Andrew Poelstra, May 28, 2014 )
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

(From my side this link is unavailable now. Does anybody know the mirror link?)

[Lauda]

The price of Bitcoin has to increase for the network to remain as strong as it is.  Otherwise, it's likely for it to become unprofitable after halving until the hashrates come down.

Well it is simple. Go find a billionaire, make him buy $1B worth of Bitcoin. Then proceed and make his wallet.dat corrupt.
Problem solved.

[devphp]

A PoS coin on the other hand costs nothing to attack, so anyone who wants to attack such a coin is able to do so without any cost/risk.

You're so clueless and a parrot of myths, it's embarrassing. Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

[amaclin]

Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

Not today, man. But some day in future.
There is no reason to attack any altcoin today. Too low profit comparing with bitcoin. No markets, no merchants... Only traders on online-exchanges
Bitcoin will fall first.

[inBitweTrust]

You're so clueless and a parrot of myths, it's embarrassing. Somebody please attack NXT and finish off its 11-month run, I am sure it will be no more difficult that taking a morning crap.

A NAS attack with a PoS typically would happen from one of the original stakeholders. Thus the threat of an attack is always looming just like the threat of Satoshi dumping his 750k - 1 million coins on the market.  

Just because an attack is difficult or unlikely doesn't mean that it isn't worth considering. Any serious security researcher goes out of his way to consider all vectors of attack and protect against them.

You are in serious denial if you believe the NaS is a myth.

I suppose you consider all Vitalik Buterin research mythological too, right?

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/10/03/slasher-ghost-developments-proof-stake/
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/05/stake/

There are many different types of attack that harm a currency. Your delusional attitude suggesting that PoS is uncrackable needs some serious reflection. We just witnessed a single DPoS developer leverage a competing DAC to undermine the currency by switching it from a deflationary one to an inflationary one for the express purpose of paying for dev and marketing salaries. If you don't consider that an attack on certain stakeholders than you really aren't serious about security.

[devphp]

I suppose you consider all Vitalik Buterin research mythological too, right?

Vitalik actually signed up on nxtforum.org a couple of months ago to learn how NXT solves the N@S issue and found the brief desciption of the approach NXT takes "reasonable". Of course, he can't use someone else's idea and is working to implement his own.

[inBitweTrust]

Vitalik actually signed up on nxtforum.org a couple of months ago to learn how NXT solves the N@S issue and found the brief desciption of the approach NXT takes "reasonable". Of course, he can't use someone else's idea and is working to implement his own.

Don't quote mine without talking about the full context!

So basically you use transactions-as-proof-of-stake. That sounds reasonable; it's as good as I can think of at this point, although it has the moderately-serious-but-not-fatal flaws that I described in my On Stake article. I eagerly await a full whitepaper description and open source code of your complete protocol so both myself and more formal academics can properly whack at the specifics.

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

[devphp]

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

[hasherr]

Lets say John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from miner and miner uses that 100$ to pay his debts and also buys new pair of jeans. So this is money "going out" of bitcoin ecosystem? And when John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from whale who bouht his 1K bitcoins 1$ each few years back, and this whale uses this 100$ on hookers, thats money "staying in" bitcoin ecosystem?

[inBitweTrust]

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

 Stop claiming its a Myth then. You should at least wait for a completed whitepaper and release of source code that is properly digested by security researchers before even suggesting Nxt is secure. To not do this is misleading and dishonest.

The most you should claim is that perhaps in the future some PoS algorithm can solve the NaS problems.

Additionally, it is indeed very well conceivable that miners will accept a hard fork introducing some other security mechanism instead of just PoW. If they are properly incentivized they would happily stop throwing away most of their profits into new asic technology. Perhaps a variation of bergstake, perhaps a variation of slasher ghost, perhaps PoR will be introduced into Bitcoin as a merged security mechanism. Until these fancy new toys get properly peer reviewed and tested, suggesting bitcoin migrate away from PoW is irresponsible.

[DumbFruit]

So are you admitting that Nxt has some yet to be resolved security flaws?

NXT's security in the bootstrapping phase (before Transparent Forging is implemented) is similar to Bitcoin's, it can be 51% attacked. Transparent Forging is supposed to fix this flaw in NXT. However, in Bitcoin this flaw will remain unfixed forever, as miners will never agree to change status quo and will keep things running as they are now until Bitcoin becomes obsolete with other systems that actually move on with development. Not necessarily NXT, it could be something else, Ethereum or whatever.

NXT will do fine as long as it's run by benign technocratic overlords, like pretty much every other currency in the world.

Bitcoin is a trust-less currency, able to do the one thing PoS coins can never do; Attain a decentralized consensus among hostile parties all over the world.

If you don't want to attain a decentralized consensus, then why bother with cryptocurrency at all?

[devphp]

Stop claiming its a Myth then. You should at least wait for a completed whitepaper and release of source code that is properly digested by security researchers before even suggesting Nxt is secure. To not do this is misleading and dishonest.

The most you should claim is that perhaps in the future some PoS algorithm can solve the NaS problems.

Source code of NXT has been available since February or March, can't remember exactly.
Some bugs were found by researchers and fixed by developers since then, no fatal bugs though which may be a promise of a robust design. Bugs exist in any other software, that's normal. As long as they are not fatal design bugs, they are fixed and software only gets better. Bitcoin itself had a serious forking bug as late as beginning of 2013, does that make it insecure? The point is software has to be improved or it gets replaced by more advanced software.

If you don't want to attain a decentralized consensus, then why bother with cryptocurrency at all?

NXT has been running in decentralized consensus for 11 months. That's a fact of life, deal with it.

[inBitweTrust]

Source code of NXT has been available since February or March, can't remember exactly.
Some bugs were found by researchers and fixed by developers since then, no fatal bugs though which may be a promise of a robust design. Bugs exist in any other software, that's normal. As long as they are not fatal design bugs, they are fixed and software only gets better. Bitcoin itself had a serious forking bug as late as beginning of 2013, does that make it insecure? The point is software has to be improved or it gets replaced by more advanced software.

I'm talking about the source code on the final adjustments of how transparent forging will function. The details on the whitepaper hasn't even been released let alone the source code for these changes.

So you agree that there are some security flaws within Nxt and NaS isn't a myth?

[amaclin]

Lets say John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from miner and miner uses that 100$ to pay his debts and also buys new pair of jeans. So this is money "going out" of bitcoin ecosystem?

Yes.
$85 gone out.
jeans came in.
block reward also came in.

And when John have 100$ and he buys 0.3 bitcoin from whale who bouht his 1K bitcoins 1$ each few years back, and this whale uses this 100$ on hookers, thats money "staying in" bitcoin ecosystem?

Yes.
And this is ponzi.

[devphp]

I'm talking about the source code on the final adjustments of how transparent forging will function. The details on the whitepaper hasn't even been released let alone the source code for these changes.

So you agree that there are some security flaw within Nxt and NaS isn't a myth?

You're right that the source code of TF is not available yet. I meant the source code of the current version 1.3.1 is available for anyone's review.

The N@S security flaw you're referring to is only a theoretical flaw, orders of magnitude more theoretical than powerful entities coercing large Bitcoin mining pools to fulfill their agendas. In particular if you hope to get private keys to a few large balances in the past and forge a chain that others would have to accept, you will be in for a big surprise. If you need details on that protection, please visit nxtforum.org, this is bitcoin's forum after all.

[inBitweTrust]

You're right that the source code of TF is not available yet. I meant the source code of the current version 1.3.1 is available for anyone's review.

The N@S security flaw you're referring to is only a theoretical flaw, orders of magnitude more theoretical than powerful entities coercing large Bitcoin mining pools to fulfill their agendas. In particular if you hope to get private keys to a few large balances in the past and forge a chain that others would have to accept, you will be in for a big surprise. If you need details on that protection, please visit nxtforum.org, this is bitcoin's forum after all.

Yes, bitcoin is vulnerable too, but because of the amount of developers working on the project and multiple stacks is far more secure than any alt right now.

Thank you for finally admitting NaS is a theoretical flaw and not only a myth. The role of security analysts to find all theoretical security flaws and patch them before an attack occurs. To simply ignore the problem by calling it a myth because it hasn't been witnessed in the wild before is just irresponsible.